Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 32 of 32

Thread: "Craniometrics Reveal “Two Layers” of Prehistoric Human Dispersal in Eastern Eurasia"

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by TuaMan View Post
    I guess I'm still a bit confused on why one would think that it has an impact on the calculation of the tMRCA of M in India relative to other M clades in Asia. Why not just go with the more straighforward assumption that M is simply younger in India than East Asia?
    The founder age of M in India (39.70 ± 3.24 ky) is significantly younger than those in East and Southeast Asia (55.60 ± 2.94 ky). The carriers of the M lineages spread from southeastern Asia, reaching India westwards and near Oceania eastwards.

    As the most parsimonious topology, the existence of several M superhaplogroups, embracing different lineages based on one or a few moderately recurrent mutations have been recognized in Build 16 [44]. Following this trend we have, provisionally, unified haplogroup M11 and the recently defined haplogroup M82 [92] under macrohaplogroup M11′82 because both share the very conservative transition 8108 (Additional file 2: Table S2). Attending to their phylogeography these superhaplogroups usually link very wide geographic areas (Additional file 2: Table S2). In accordance with our suggestion that the carriers of Macrohaplogroup M colonized South Asia later than southeastern Asia and Oceania and that this mtDNA gene flow had an eastern origin we have observed that the mean radiation age of those superhaplogroups involving South Asia (39.70 ± 3.24 ky) is significantly younger (p = 0.003) than the one relating East and Southeast Asia (55.60 ± 2.94 ky). In this comparison we considered the South Asia-Southeast Asia-Australian link deduced from superhaplogroup M42′74 as specifically involving India. However, we considered superhaplogroup M62′68 as indicative of an East Asia-Southeast Asia link because M62 has been found consistently in Tibet [112, 113] but only sporadically in northeast India [67].
    Давайте вместе снова сделаем мир великий!

  2. #32
    Registered Users
    Y-DNA (P)
    mtDNA (M)

    Normandie Wallonia
    Quote Originally Posted by ThirdTerm View Post
    The founder age of M in India (39.70 ± 3.24 ky) is significantly younger than those in East and Southeast Asia (55.60 ± 2.94 ky). The carriers of the M lineages spread from southeastern Asia, reaching India westwards and near Oceania eastwards.
    I suppose the Out of Africa isthe oldest hypothesis during Eemian dating around 130-120,000 coinciding with the Nubian Culture in Arabia and thed AMH remains in Levant (y-hg CT and mt hg L3'4'6) . it could be an out of Arabia/Into East Asia) happened during the more temperate (with warm peaks) and wetter Odderade phase (85,000-75,000) before the first pleniglacial (75,000-60,000). During this expansion to India, South China and Sunda of y-hg C, D, H, K and mt hg M and N, there was a star explosion of hundred of M sub-branches.
    But why the founder age of M branches India seems younger the founder ages of M in South-East Asia although I think the real foundation date was the same and probably some centuries earlier in India : one reason is the big nowadays M branches in India (M2, M3, M4'30, M5, M6) plus the occidental M1 which seem me indigenous and not coming from East Asia. They are a big part (60%) of the Indian population and rare elsewhere.

    1) A secondary reason : a new extension in Sahul (Australia/New Guinea and emerged platform during the first pleniglacial which generates new branches M branches an sub-branches which have survived until nowadays.

    2) A main reason with two coupled reasons : the cataclysmic volcanic explosion of Toba in Noth-West Sumatra around 74-73,000BP and the first pleniglacial (75-60,000) with great extension of deserts and poor vegetation which affected a quick population reprisal after the catastroph of Toba Volcano . It seems the dominant winds created big ash layer specially in India, this should have killed the greatest part of population of India but probably in sheltered areas there were some survivors bearing Y haplogroup H and mt hgs specifically indian ; a lot of branches and sub-branches of M disappeared in India who created the artifiicial younger indian M.

    There was some migrations coming from East to North India in the emptiness created by the catastroph, but not a lot because the coming first pleniglacial . It could be the time Y-hg P and several mt branches of R come from Sunda/Indochina to North India and then norhwards in Central Asia/Siberia after the end of pleniglacial around 60000BP.

    The advantages and the problems of this hypothesis is for its compatible mutation rates to facilitate the explanation of other genetic events , but also the difficulties to conciliate other genetic events as well as to question the nowadays consensus-accepted mutation rates. I am not a specialist, but maybe there are differences between slower evolutionary rates and real biological rates.
    Last edited by palamede; 04-02-2019 at 11:13 AM.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. Does "Caucasus/CHG" count as Middle eastern/MENA ?
    By joconbomama in forum Autosomal (auDNA)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-30-2018, 01:41 PM
  2. Replies: 744
    Last Post: 01-15-2018, 06:54 PM
  3. Replies: 172
    Last Post: 07-21-2017, 08:57 PM
  4. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 01-30-2017, 09:51 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-25-2017, 05:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts